If Russia conquers Poland, it's really hard to see an easy way to get it back given the nukes. So again, if the Russians decide Poland belongs to them, and Putin acts on that and seizes the country, your response is?
Russia won't conquer Poland though, because Poland is a NATO member which has been explicitly strengthening it's defense.If Russia conquers Poland, it's really hard to see an easy way to get it back given the nukes. So again, if the Russians decide Poland belongs to them, and Putin acts on that and seizes the country, your response is?
Given your comments here, I hope you also endorse Yemeni suicide bombers attacking American civilians as retaliation for the absolutely brutal campaign we've been waging there.I do not care about the quality of life of the average Russian. I understand they are under a shitty oligarchal society. I also understand that nothing that we can do can actually help them escape this. They are currently committing genocide in Chechnya and we can do nothing to to help those gay men.
Russia has attacked the USA, the UK, Germany, France, and countless other nations. This cannot go without a response. I do not believe economic sanctions should be off the table for "humanitarian" reasons. A recession is not a world-ending event. There is still food, water and shelter there. I also do not know what the best course of action re: specific sanctions is, because it is not my field of expertise. But "nothing" is not the response we should be taking here.
I mean - how can we know? We're not privy to pretty key information about the scale of the threat here.
General sanctions create a rally around the flag effect but often don't work because it's hard to completely isolate an economy (the economic incentive to cheat for cheap goods becomes too great).
I remember reading a pretty convincing argument that the sanctions against South Africa did fuck and all to hasten the ending of Apartheid. The white South Africans basically had to figure out that Apartheid was bad on their own, though being a global pariah probably helped get the message through.
Targeted sanctions against a kleptocracy like Russia are exactly what's needed: Russian oligarchs don't want to store their wealth in Russia because of how shitty they've made Russia in order to loot the country, so stopping them from storing their wealth elsewhere is hurting exactly the kind of people who can stand the pain the most, and are also in the best position to change things.
If you truly "just don't know," maybe you should refrain from discussing the subject.
Russia invades Ukraine. Runs propaganda campaigns in many, many western elections. Installs a puppet in the WH.I don't know - bc how can we know, we don't know what the real threat is. But I do know that we're NOT at war w Russia and our response should be measured, not escalate and be a deterrent, not simply retribution.
?If you truly "just don't know," maybe you should refrain from discussing the subject.
Russia invades Ukraine. Runs propaganda campaigns in many, many western elections. Installs a puppet in the WH?.
And you "don't know who the real threat is? But you do know we're "not at war with them" even though Russia's attacking western democracies across the world?
Crab, there is no apology needed because none is deserved.
?
I think "hey let's take a measured approach"
Is far more sane than people here, who know equally little, arguing for crippling economic sanctions at a minimum
Weird that you guys are saying "nah, don't hit them back"
You're right tho - I don't claim to know the best path forward.When did "sane" come to mean "vague, wishy washy, and producing no actionable plan in response to threats to our electoral sovereignty"? Merriam Webster moves so quickly in this digital age.
No, I'm giving up on Crimea because there is no reasonable prospect of getting it back, which is wildly different to doing it because Russia thinks it belong to them. If you can't understand the difference between these two positions, there's absolutely no point in conversation with you because this is some basic-level shit. If you can understand the difference between these two positions, there's absolutely no point in conversation with you because you're being deliberately disingenuous. Either way...
Don't ever be in that situation. Invest incredibly heavily in Poland's border defence now, encourage Europe to develop their military power, station rotating troops on the Polish border at all times, make it clear that invasion of Poland is such a significant cost it could never possibly be worth it. Putin shouldn't be just seizing Poland; that should be an impossibility right from the outset. Make your policy proactive, not reactive.
Russia won't conquer Poland though, because Poland is a NATO member which has been explicitly strengthening it's defense.
I wasn't defending Valhelm's position, I'm broadly pro-NATO.Pretty sure Valhelm (who started this conversation) is opposed to NATO buildup, as are many of the people I'm talking about! Also, how does this deterrent actually work given than we've done little to deter such actions?
Another lie. This thread can be utterly shameless sometimes.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) learned from [Talking Points Memo] last week that Senate Majority Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was telling moderate Republican senators in closed-door meetings that a future Congress and president will not let the bills harshest cuts to Medicaid go into effect.
On Monday, Johnson told reporters he went to the moderate senators in question and confirmed that report, causing him to withdraw his previous support for advancing the bill.
I was strongly in favor of the motion to proceed before I read the comments by Senator McConnell, he said. The dont worry about it, its too far in the future, itll never happen. Ive confirmed those comments with the senators they were made to, learned they were largely accurate, and I find those comments very troubling. It really does put in jeopardy the motion to proceed.
Then why do you keep swimming across the figurative Atlantic to come in here and subject yourself to our shamelessness? Are we the intellectually bankrupt savages whom you've resolved to enlighten?
Sanctions don't work in the long-term because they don't induce stagnation (unless you keep applying new ones), they induce a single hit. After the initial recession, the economy affected reorients towards different markets (e.g., like how Russia's economy redoubled after the 2014 sanctions by pivoting towards Asian markets) and you're back to square one.
If you think there's nuance there and there's some way that Russia's economy could be damaged to the point it reduces their state power without damaging the quality of life of the average Russian, please tell me, I'm all ears. I was hoping kirblar would have the answer, as he seemed so confident in it, but I can't hear much but the sound of backtracking.
This is actually hugely disingenuous when I've spent repeated posts explicitly talking about bulking up the Polish border, but fine, continue this gross piece of intellectual masturbation.
I don't trust our military to get it right, especially in light of this weird hawkish wave popping up on the left.
I don't know - bc how can we know, we don't know what the real threat is. But I do know that we're NOT at war w Russia and our response should be measured, not escalate and be a deterrent, not simply retribution.
No, this is dumb. It's perfectly possible to not know which policy is the right one, but to also know which policies are definitely incorrect.
If "the enemy is unknowable", then the logical conclusion is that nothing should be done.You lied. You said PBY said nothing ought to be done. There is a post where PBY explicitly says something ought to be done. That is outright lying. I can't really say any more without backseat modding, but suffice to say I think an edit and a retraction is the very least that is due.
Joe is so going to run.
Gonna be weird seeing him and Bernie debate in 2019
"Hillary's a centrist neoliberal shill."
"Hillary's too old."
Ladies and gentleman, I give you Joe Biden, 78-year-old author of the 1994 crime bill and borderline Blue Dog during his tenure in the Senate. Liberal Icon.
Well, this is great news:
It's not him officially saying he'll vote against it, but it's damn close.
Not what I would have wanted- someone going against the bill because it goes too far, not because it doesn't go far enough in limiting Americans' health care- but anything that gets the Senate to 3 R votes against is fantastic in my book.
Can't do Sanctions because those are pointless;
I guess we could bulk up the Polish border, which I'm sure will do a lot to stop Russian Espionage
This is the song that doesn't end, yes it goes on and on my friend~~Well, this is great news:
It's not him officially saying he'll vote against it, but it's damn close.
Not what I would have wanted- someone going against the bill because it goes too far, not because it doesn't go far enough in limiting Americans' health care- but anything that gets the Senate to 3 R votes against is fantastic in my book.
Crab, what's the best way to expand without inflicting massive AE penalties and/or forming coalitions against you? Also, the cheapest way to core new provinces? Is it diplo-annex the shit out of everything? I suck at this game, help.
I don't know? I just know that the response should be measured and considered with respect to the bad act we're trying to mitigate. "PUNCH EM BACK" is not that.
This is some hawkishness I can't comprehend. "Everything should be on the table" outside of boots on the ground??????
Like - are you okay with airstrikes?
Well, this is great news:
It's not him officially saying he'll vote against it, but it's damn close.
Not what I would have wanted- someone going against the bill because it goes too far, not because it doesn't go far enough in limiting Americans' health care- but anything that gets the Senate to 3 R votes against is fantastic in my book.
Failing NYT getting scoped by CNN:
http://us.cnn.com/2017/07/17/politi...ald-trump-jr-meeting-with-russians/index.html
(CNN) - Donald Trump Jr.'s attorney, Alan Futerfas, has told CNN he has spoken by phone to the eighth person in the room during the meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016.
...
Futerfas says the person, who he declined to name, was a US citizen and said he was not employed by the Russian government. But Futerfas acknowledged he didn't know his entire history. The Agalarovs and their attorney have not publicly explained who the employee was who attended.
Futerfas says during his conversation the Agalarov representative corroborated what has already been reported about the meeting: that in the first couple of minutes there were pleasantries exchanged and then the Russian lawyer discussed the information she allegedly had about Russia donating to the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton before moving on to the topic of adoptions.
He also defended Trump Jr. as being willing to tell the full story even before the initial New York Times article appeared.
"Don Jr. and his counsel were fully prepared and absolutely prepared to publish or make a statement that was a fulsome statement about the nature of the meeting, what led to the meeting, what the conversation was in the meeting"
Jr.'s lawyer knows who it is but isn't naming him
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/17/politics/donald-trump-jr-agalarov/index.html
Yeah sexism is totally a factor why joe is more liked with some people who hated Hillary. But at the same time I think his more genuine relationship with Obama than the sort of political partnership Hillary and Bams had made him a little more endearing.My moderate statement on this possibility:
This seems like a fairly large leap. That the enemy is unknowable is to some degree defensible, because geopolitics isn't as clear as math is. Responses to certain policies can vary depending on events that cannot be predicted ahead of time.If "the enemy is unknowable", then the logical conclusion is that nothing should be done.
If someone argues that a fact is unknowable, despite widespread expert agreement to its existence,they are starting with a conclusion and warping their arguments to justify it.
Futerfas says the person, who he declined to name, was a US citizen and said he was not employed by the Russian government. But Futerfas acknowledged he didn't know his entire history.
It's not defensible. Russia hacked us. Russia has been colluding with right-wing parties across the western world and deploying propaganda to manipulate elections.This seems like a fairly large leap. That the enemy is unknowable is to some degree defensible, because geopolitics isn't as clear as math is. Responses to certain policies can vary depending on events that cannot be predicted ahead of time.
For example I don't know what the right economic policy is for every country in Africa, I may not know even if I'm an "expert" on an individual country, but I can believe that protectionism for every single one is the wrong policy, or at least take that as a roughly defined position
Likewise it's valid for someone like PBY to be skeptical because he admits he doesn't know, which is a good thing, and because like Crab mentioned nobody here is currently making a good case for sanctions, and like Crab mentioned this shouldn't be misconstrued with a desire to do nothing, it's a challenge to present a sound argument.
The bill is going well.Mike Lee @SenMikeLee
My colleague @JerryMoran and I will not support the MTP to this version of BCRA #HealthcareBill
It's not defensible. Russia hacked us. Russia has been colluding with right-wing parties across the western world and deploying propaganda to manipulate elections.
These facts are not in doubt. If they are for you, then you have a problem.
do you support Iraqi and Yemeni suicide bombers attacking American civilians until America retreats from their territory?It's not defensible. Russia hacked us. Russia has been colluding with right-wing parties across the western world and deploying propaganda to manipulate elections.
These facts are not in doubt. If they are for you, then you have a problem.
That's some wildly revisionist history."Don Jr. and his counsel were fully prepared and absolutely prepared to publish or make a statement that was a fulsome statement about the nature of the meeting, what led to the meeting, what the conversation was in the meeting"
But Trump only just found out!Futerfas also confirmed that the $50,000 that the Trump re-election campaign paid in June to his firm was, at least in part, for work he's now doing for Donald Trump Jr.
YO!Mike Lee‏
@SenMikeLee
My colleague @JerryMoran and I will not support the MTP to this version of BCRA #HealthcareBill
No. I also did not support the invasion of Iraq.do you support Iraqi and Yemeni suicide bombers attacking American civilians until America retreats from their territory?
The bill is going well.
My point about the Russian border was explicitly responding to Antrax's question about what to do in the event of Polish invasion. It's quite easy for me to say 'bolster democratic cybersecurity' as well, they're not conflicting policies. It's also very unclear to me how sanctions stop Russian espionage either, since a) Russia is currently under sanctions and b) Russia is currently engaging in espionage.
PBY's "don't trust the military" comment was in response to someone who literally suggested considering military strikes. It's pretty fair to say I wouldn't trust the United States to invade Russia but I would trust them to defend Poland (to an extent); I imagine PBY feels the same way.
PBY says he doesn't know what the exact best policy is because we don't have enough information. I agree. I say that we do have enough information to determine what some of the worse policies are. PBY (probably) agrees (although I don't want to speak for him). None of this is inconsistent.
This selective quoting is just getting desperate. I'm saddened to know that war boners aren't just a Republican trait.
Wouldn't that play into what the Russians have been saying about NATO buildup? Anyway, we have been doing that for the last few years.
This is more or less what you've been saying for a couple pages, again with a strawman.It's not defensible. Russia hacked us. Russia has been colluding with right-wing parties across the western world and deploying propaganda to manipulate elections.
These facts are not in doubt. If they are for you, then you have a problem.
Sanctions and other actions against Russia that concerns the interference in the 2016 election will target entities and people that is associated with the interference. Wide- economic sanctions will likely not happen unless the reason is to punish and weaken the country as a whole,and to demonstrate willingness to damage the country. At that point, the US government is not fully concerned with the lives of the citizens, similar to North Korea.